> I think one challenge a lot of the business schools have is they end up attracting students who are very extroverted and have very low conviction, and they put them in this hot house environment for a few years — at the end of which, a large number of people go into whatever was the last trendy thing to do. They’ve done studies at Harvard Business School where they’ve found that the largest cohort always went into the wrong field. So in 1989, they all went to work for Michael Milken, a year or two before he went to jail. They were never interested in Silicon Valley except for 1999, 2000. The last decade their interest was housing and private equity.
> So there is something about the way in which business school is decoupled from anything really substantive that I’d want to rethink.
From this article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2014/10... (but I heard him express this in a talk on Youtube that I can't find, and not in that article.)
There seems to be something that's almost by definition generic about MBA types that's built in to the network of people (paraphrasing Thiel and others, who decides to go to business school, unless they simply have no other ideas and its the "thing to do"?) or the education itself. They are probably still excellent for lots of businesses, but they may be the businesses that Warren buffet calls "a business that's doing so well an idiot could run it." They may not be businesses that need to pivot in any meaningful way.